MVC Will Review Housing Trust's Affordable Apartment Plan

A plan to convert an old house off Water street in Vineyard Haven into affordable apartments will require review by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission as a development of regional impact, the commission decided last week.

The location of the building at 6 Water street near the congested Five Corners intersection was cited as a primary reason. In making its decision, the commission also cited its role as a regional planning agency, and the need to think about long-term impacts.

“We’re a planning agency. I think we should study the big picture,” said Clarence A. (Trip) Barnes 3rd, who urged his fellow commissioners to review the housing project as a DRI.

Commissioner Joan Malkin agreed. “We owe it to our constituency to open it up to the public,” she said.

The discussion before the MVC last Thursday night was during what is called a concurrence review, which happens in certain instances when the commission must decide whether a project merits review as a development of regional impact.

The property at 6 Water street, sandwiched into the Stop & Shop complex, is owned by the Island Housing Trust. The house was purchased in 2012 by Steve Bernier, the owner of Cronig’s Markets, who later donated it to the housing trust. The trust has since developed plans to tear down the house and rebuild it into six one-bedroom apartments. The trust used $20,000 in Community Preservation Act money to design the project and is working under Chapter 40B, the state law that allows a somewhat expedited review for affordable housing projects. The commission has the power to review Chapter 40B projects.

MVC will review the plan as a development of regional impact.
— Mark Lovewell

Three of the apartments are planned to be accessible for people with handicaps. The new two-story building would have photovoltaics on the roof, and would need to be elevated because it lies in a floodplain. No onsite parking is planned; Island Housing Trust representatives said the project was an effort to tap into the walkability of the area.

The project was referred to the commission by Tisbury building inspector Ken Barwick. At the meeting Thursday there was some debate about whether to require DRI review. A prior meeting of the commission land use planning subcommittee had voted 3-1-1 to recommend review.

Housing trust executive director Philippe Jordi and president Richard Leonard appeared before the commission and said they were hoping to move forward with the project in time to qualify for an annual cycle of housing grants.

“We recognize the importance of this location as a gateway to the Island,” Mr. Jordi said, adding that the location was part of the reason the housing trust was pursuing the project. He said Dukes County Regional Housing Authority guidelines would limit the apartments to one or two residents each and that because there would be no parking, impact would be lessened.

But Linda Sibley, who had voted against the review during the subcommittee meeting, said she had changed her mind.

“It is, as has been pointed out here, next to a very congested area,” Mrs. Sibley said. “It is in an area which is undergoing redevelopment.”

Commissioner Brian Smith said that a public hearing would not change the fundamentals of the project. “What benefit did LUPC think they were going to get from a public hearing?” he said. “The building and the size is what it’s going to be.”

Mr. Leonard said he was not sure how the proposed plan would be improved by going through a DRI review, and suggested that the project was receiving more scrutiny because of the Stop & Shop process.

“We have a need, we have a great plan, and we’d ask you to consider that and ask us to go forward with the town who we’ve worked with closely,” he said.

“It’s not about the merits of the proposal,” said commissioner Fred Hancock. “One way or another, the vote isn’t about whether this is a good project. The vote is about whether it needs to be reviewed as a DRI.”

Mrs. Sibley disputed Mr. Leonard’s suggestion.

“I have a problem with us being portrayed as bad guys because we think the project deserves thorough public review,” she said.

Mrs. Malkin said the project could benefit from review. “I don’t dispute that you have undertaken obvious efforts to meet the Island Plan and to minimize this, minimize that,” she said. “But those things go to the benefits and detriments which is the kind of thing [a hearing] would address.”

Mr. Leonard said he had not intended any disrespect with his statement.

In the end the commission voted 9-3 with one abstention to recommend the project as a DRI.

Mr. Hancock said a public hearing will be scheduled as soon as possible to help the Island Housing Trust meet grant deadlines.

Comments (6)

George Stein, Edgartown

Why not resell the property to a commercial developer to generate funding of a larger multiple 1 or 2 bedroom facility in a more residential setting ? Even a corpse would not get regular sleep there. Not the best place to raise a child either .

All very good questions George.
The Island Housing Trust has only been approached by one business interested in making a parking lot of the property. The new reality for businesses in this area is the requirement to build 5-6 feet above the flood zone, making it very difficult for businesses and their customers to walk up a flight of stairs or to provide handicapped accessibility. Just take a look at the Maciel Marine building down the street.
The Island Housing Trust builds it's building to high performance and livability standards. Super insulated walls and triple glaze windows will not only provide greater energy efficiency and long term affordability but also vastly reduce any noise pollution.
Based on our experience managing four rental apartments down the street, we don't expect families with children will be living in these smaller one-bedroom apartments. However, we already do have many younger and older residents with critical housing needs who have expressed a great interest in living at the Water Street Apartments.

Island Housing Trust, has the property been marketed properly? It seems like selling it and building or buying in a residential area would spare the IHT the expense of building in the flood zone and needing to mitigate noise, air quality, parking and access issues caused by the needed height. If it can't be sold, maybe it could be used as short term emergency shelter? We do need elder and handicap accessed housing but a tall structure would add the expense of elevators for elderly and the air and noise pollution is problematic, as is the lack of available parking and access for services that many elders require and enjoy. Being in the flood zone of Five Corners could isolate and cut off residents when they might be most vulnerable.

I wish you would consider studio apts. like we built at The Love House. They work well for single people - old or young. And I think the MVC is overstepping its bounds if you're providing less than 10 units....the town can handle this easily. I do think you should find a place for one hand. parking place though or you really can't rent to disabled people. Can you get rental assistance for these units or will they be fair market rents (what some call affordable). And year round?
I think this is the right use of this bldg. and hope it can ease the housing situation for lower income folks.

Thanks Carol. Based on our experience managing properties in this area, we know that it's an excellent location for residents, both young and old, who use public and alternative transportation and enjoy walking to shopping and other in-town amenities. We've included one on-site temporary parking space to service the property and our tenants. You can find plans on our website and Facebook page.

5 corners needs to have a traffic circle just like at Barnes Rd/EdgartownVH Road. Sell the property to the governing road authority and use the proceeds for housing elsewhere. This would be a first step in aquiring the necessary land.